Talk:Build
Structure Why are Builds like Cra/Strength categorized under Class, instead of here? --GrauGeist 23:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC) : Both class and build are part of Category:Class. The build pages are just extended strategy guides for a class, and the category is small enough that it doesn't make much sense to split it up anyway. - Dashiva 11:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC) Build writers I'm not very impressed by many of the current builds. Many of them seem to be written by f2p players who never left Astrub, and few of those seem to have even reached level 20. Considering many classes change fundamentally at the mid levels, a guide that doesn't take that into account can actually be more harm than good. So I'm pondering if we should set down a guideline saying "Don't write a guide if you haven't played the class to at least level 60." or similar. Thoughts, comments? - Dashiva 12:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC) : That does exclude people who want to write up a hypothetical plan. Sometimes experienced players might want to write up a build that they're in the process of trying or they are going to try. Additionally, some builds are just not really intended for long-term use, but just for capability at a certain level. I can certainly see someone wanting to level a sadida up just enough to use the +damages/earthquake idea for item farming, for example. Maybe a bluff eca has its use as a first character for getting items, materials and a bankroll for a second, "real" character. Should we limit these options just because we don't think they're particularly wise for the long term? BadMrMojo 15:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC) ::One problem I have with making it lvl 60+ is that I have recently hit lvl 60 on my eni, but I think I am well knowledged in many if not all classes and how to lvl and what spells to lvl. Maybe that is just because it took me like 10 months (literally, maybe 11) to get lvl 60 eni, and I have experimented and watched other people level. - MrMunchie :: Add a "comments" section that discusses the experience and expectations of the Build. --GrauGeist 18:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC) Perhaps tag a guide written by someone under 60 so people will know that they may be screwing themselves up by following it. - Jebin Zedalu June 19, 2006 : Perhaps instead we could have a tag for indicating the approximate level at which a build would plateau or a range which is the primary focus for the character. (ie: pure Int Cra builds get a template at the top which says something like, "Strongest levels: 1-30, 90+" Everyone's favorite, Bluff Ecas, get a tag which says, "Strongest levels: 9-30". Chance enus: 31-45, 60+). While the ranges are just examples off the top of my head, whaddya think? BadMrMojo 15:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC) :: I like your idea a lot mojo. Intel enis get to have their strongest lvl marked at 60+ ^.^ - MrMunchie ::: I think the recommendations should be discussed within the Builds section of the parent page. So Cra Builds is where Cra/Intelligence]should be discussed relative to Cra/Strength and Cra/Agility or Cra/Intelligence/Strength. --GrauGeist 18:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC) Of course, we still need to figure out what to do with stuff like this: Feca/Chance. Maybe a template. BadMrMojo 17:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC) New build Im currently working on a new Eni build, can someone tell me where to go to start writing it? : Go to Eniripsa, edit it, go to the "Builds" section, and add another link in the form * Eniripsa/(buildname), but replace (buildname) with a very short name for your new build. Save the changes, and then click the new link. This will take you to the edit page where you can put all your build information. I urge you to use the Show Preview'' button before saving your new build, to proofread it, make sure it looks good, and to ensure that any links are working properly. --TaviRider 10:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC) Build Rating Project What do people think about a consistent set of tags at the top of each "build" page? We can mark them as being short-term, long-term, fundamentally flawed (misunderstanding a game mechanic, for example), creative, standard, expensive (good for an established player), cheap (good for a new player), etc... Each build page would then start with a consistent header describing the community's collective opinion of what follows. I'm thinking of a iconic system similar to what you see on television or video games - something like this at the top (possibly with categories for each possible tag?): : This build, , has rated by the wiki community as being: * '''ST Short Term (Best for short term advancement and will be weaker at higher levels) * FF Fundamentally Flawed (A basic game mechanic has been misunderstood by the author and it will not work as indicated below) * INC Incomplete (The information below has not yet been completed, edited or formatted thoroughly). What do people think and is anyone else interested in coming up with a system? - BadMrMojo 15:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)